This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

All the justices are equally qualified in their position. You have every right to agree with justices whom hold beliefs that you share. But Scalia, Roberts, whoever's dissent is not the be all end all of constitutional interpretations. 5 other equally as qualified justices disagree with those 4 and their dissents.

I'm pretty sure this is not the only case in Supreme court history with a final decision so split down the middle and I'm sure there were dissents from both sides claiming the decision had nothing to do with the constitution and what it decrees.

It boils down to a fundamental disagreement on the interpratiation but one of the interpretations had to be decided on. It didn't work out in those four justices favor.

I understand that, but I'm here not so much in disagreement about SSM as I as much as I hate to say it, also see the writing on the wall. My issue is with the interpretations of the majority and how they got there, and civil debate on these points is exactly the kind of stuff DP was created for.

Tim-

“When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
“Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

What's this "our" bullcrap? Your deity is not my deity.I am not bound one iota by your religious beliefs. I am bound by my own. If your deity has a problem with me,he knows where to find me.As It stands I am healthy,have a great wife,wonderful kids,beautiful grandchildren,a successful career,great friends,and plenty of wealth. I believe that I am,what you might called,blessed. And I am thankful for it. I don't need to thank you or your "Lord" for that.

Yeh...you gave that impression.

Let's hope you don't become poor, divorced and unhappy for mocking the Lord.

32 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.
Matt. 10:32-33

The Supreme Court interpreted the constitution. This was already in the constitution. No vote required, unless you want to vote to amend the constitution. Good luck!

5 lawyers just changes the definition of marriage. you can dodge that obvious fact all you want. It happened. That does not mean it is right, it's just what happened. and the liberals vote in a sheep-like block on all this issues anyway. \
they ignored the words in the constitution in the Obamacare ruling, yet today they are defend it, is that your warped theory?

Oh you mean exactly the same thing they did today, then? Exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about?

It doesn't matter if you're talking about Dred Scott, Roe, or this newest abomination.

Maintaining the integrity of the Constitution is their job. When they not only fail to do that, but they directly violate the Constitution themselves and make up new "rights" willy nilly and force them against the states appropriate of nothing, that is tyranny.

When the foxes rule the henhouse, it's game over.

Except that this ruling did not make up any new rights. Marriage has been considered a right by the courts for decades in, I believe it was, 3 other separate court decisions. Loving v Virginia being one of them.

I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

Your magic book has no authority over the United States or any of it's citizens. It shouldn't therefore be used to enact laws.

God rules, not ungodly men.

"Supreme Court Justices, can you judge the ways of God? Can you, with manmade verdicts, overrule the eternal laws of God? There is another court, and there is another Judge. And before Him, all men and all judges will give account. If a nation's high court should pass judgment on the Almighty, should you then be surprised if the Almighty should pass judgment on that court and that nation?"